I remember my dad pulling a Scotty camper with an AMC Pacer Wagon, 258-6. He wired it up for electric brakes, and it worked ok for the speed limits at that time – 55 MPH, closely monitored by the State Police.

When I was growing up our family car was a ’73 Country Squire Brougham. We also pulled a trailer similar in size to the Prowler pictured. The 400 did OK, but there were times where it overheated as I recall. BTW, the Country Squire pictured is a Brougham too. You can tell by the high backed seats.

Well, we had only bought a ’20 popup tent trailer earlier in the year, but my Father went ahead and traded in our ’69 Country Squire for a ’73 Country Sedan (a wagon but without the woodgrain trim on the side) with the trailer towing package, which I think included transmission cooler and a different differential ratio. The country sedan was actually more fully optioned than our Country Squire, besides the trailer towing package, it had air conditioning (we had moved to Virginia from up north and I’m sure that was part of the reason he bought this wagon when he did)…also had the 400 CID engine (2 barrel, I think) AM/FM stereo (no tape) and power locks (no power windows except for the rear tailgate window) and seating for 6. We had exactly 6 people in my family at the time, and the rearmost area which would have had the small seating for 2 additional was instead used as a storage area for lots of the “stuff” we took with us…we called it “the well” and one of the skills we had to master was to try to pack as much “stuff” in the well so that the rear cargo area was mostly open so we could just put things like coolers that we needed frequent access to, and to separate the inevitable fighting siblings. I also remember it had Firestone 500 Radial tires, which I’m sure my Dad requested, but also that those tires delaminated very quickly (fortunately discovered when the car was up on a lift for a routine service,that at least one tire had a “bubble” in the sidewall”). I don’t think the tires had more than 1000 miles on them at the time. I’m not sure what he replaced them with, probably bias-ply tires, but it turned out to be a common problem with these tires.

A couple years later we built a radio-shack electronic ignition kit for this car (I would guess it was trying to save gas for the shortage a year later). This was before most cars had electronic ignition, and it was short lived, my Father disconnected it after he had an ignition coil go back during a trip back to visit grandparents in Pennsylvania (he blamed the electronic ignition for killing the coil).

My job was to direct my father while he was backing up to hitch up the trailer, and also to help open up the poptop trailer, level it, attach the accessories (primarily a tarp). We had some nice camping trips, but only used it for a few more years; by the late 70’s I was in college and had less time for family trips, and my sisters weren’t into camping…it was replaced in 1978 with a Caprice Classic wagon (with the woodgrain trim)

I was driving a 74 Aussie Ford Falcon when I made the mistake of buying a 15ft caravan the 250 auto combination was too tired for the job Lilydale to Shepparton some 200kms was its only long trip I swapped it for a 265 Valiant which never noticed the van behind it other than increased fuel consumption.

I remember (barely) when the folks had a 59 Plymouth Fury? wagon and it was still legal in California to tow 2 trailers, we had a small travel trailer and a outboard ski boat hooked up behind. Dad would back the car with trailer down the boat ramp to launch. I also remember the boat coming unhooked once, and my brother and Dad running out to quickly hook it back up with little or no damage. The 67 Conti pulled the 25 ft Shasta double axle TT with the family of 5 aboard (in the car) with no trouble, it had an equalizer hitch and transmission cooler added. That big 460 pulled like it wasn’t even back there, probably to the tune of 5-6 MPG. He also used his 72 Winnie Brave (around 20 ft) with 318 to tow his 65 C10 from California to Oregon in the winter, and he said he encountered some slippery roads going down the passes and the truck nearly pushed the motorhome off the road. He was a truck driver from way back, so it must have been really scary for him to mention that. That little 318 must have really been straining to pull that load up the passes.

I believe the whole point of the camper special was that it had the rear axle closer to the rear bumper. This was to better deal with really long slide-in type campers that hung out the back really far. The slide-in camper went out of style 30 years ago and was replaced with large trailers and motor homes.

My dads 68 C10 was a camper special with overloads welded to the frame. It would have towed any of them I expect but today I am limited to 3500 lbs. I would prefer any of the smallest three anyway and am looking forward to making or buying something to pull with my 4Runner. I really want to make a tear drop on one of my existing trailers.

I prefer the Torino Squire over the LTD because the overall styling looks better to me. Body has more curves. Towing a trailer is not something you can don with today’s cars, because they are too light, have nothing solid underneath to attach a trailer hitch to, and are FWD. When towing a trailer all the additional weight is on the rear wheels.

You cannot tow a trailer with a Pinto. I looked everywhere for a trailer hitch for my Pinto. No luck. There really isn’t a place to safely install one anyway. I found the same thing with the Fairlane. Nothing available. Surprisingly I did find a class 1 hitch for my ’01 Malibu. I use it to tow a tiny single rail motorcycle trailer with my dirt bike on it. When it gets to hot to ride down here in the summer, I haul it up into the mountains to ride, in air conditioned comfort.

I still think trailer towing should be left to trucks. I was looking at Chevy HHRs, found one I really liked, but refused to consider buying it because it had a trailer hitch. It had decent miles, but I consider towing a trailer with such a vehicle (front wheel drive and a 2.2L four) to be abuse. It could have had a LOT more wear on it than the mileage would indicate.

Are they the older models with thin bumpers, or 1974 and later models with the huge safety bumpers? That pic shows a Pinto Cruising Wagon, probably 1977 or later. On the ’72, the bumpers are purely cosmetic, bolted right to the body. I cannot find anything solid under the back of the car that you could bolt a hitch to. Later models may have been redesigned to accommodate the heavy bumpers. I know the Pinto gained a LOT of weight between the first year of production and the last. I even remember Ford using “road hugging weight” as a selling point in it’s commercials.

Towing a trailer is not something you can do with today’s cars, because they are too light, have nothing solid underneath to attach a trailer hitch to, and are FWD. When towing a trailer all the additional weight is on the rear wheels.

You do realize that making a statement like that is totally off-base? Any car can tow, and FWD cars in Europe routinely (and for decades) have been towing large trailers weighing several thousand pounds. The FWD VW Passat in the picture is a typical and common European tow rig.

FWD has nothing to do with a car’s towing ability, except for a modest reduction in traction, which is not an issue unless one is towing in the snow (unlikely). Modern unibodies are stiffer and stronger than the old BOF cars of the past.

I was going to make much the same point. Safe towing is all about weight distribution, and ensuring the wheelbase of the tow vehicle is long enough for the trailer being towed. For heavier trailers, these days, a weight-distribution hitch will ensure the tongue weight is carried by both front and rear wheel of the tow vehicle.

Since this was printed, family vehicles have generally grown heavier (not lighter), but they’ve also grown shorter. Trailers have also grown longer. To get a curren t vehicle long enough for the larger trailers above, large SUVs and pickups are about the only options out there.

Hmmm, you should inform Ford and International Harvester that the Ford C-600 short wheel base semi-tractor is unsafe and the International C.O.E SBA semi tractor is unsafe.

Letsee…this one here must be an absolute death trap:

-Nate

Posted February 8, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Could be ~ I remember some ” interesting ” drives in old yard goats like that .

-Nate

JunkyardDog

Posted February 8, 2015 at 7:16 PM

You don’t see cab over semis anymore. Someone did claim they were not safe, as there wasn’t anything between the driver and whatever they hit. I guess nobody told Isuzu, as their NPR cab overs are everywhere. IN liked that about ’70s and older vans. You sat right over the front wheels, with that big “doghouse” engine cover right next to you. You could do some pretty neat customizing with the front interior part of a van like that. Now, for safety reasons, they have moved the engine way forward, and eliminated the doghouse altogether. Looks just like a pickup from inside.

Others may do it, but I would not tow more than 500 pounds with a FWD car. That’s about what my bike/trailer weighs. And I tow it up into the mountains, from 1200 feet to nearly 10,000 feet. I actually don’t know what the tongue weight is, I never checked it, but it feels fine. And aside from driving the car from the wrong end, FWD transaxles are not considered nearly as strong as RWD transmissions. There is a reason why they do not make FrontWD trucks. (the VW Rabbit excluded) And a reason for dual rear wheels on large pickups. Even Honda, whose only RWD cars were the Acura NSX and S2000, made the Ridgeline a 4 wheel drive.

kiwibryce

Posted February 8, 2015 at 11:23 PM

With the steep twisting roads here we use short wheelbase semis to tow one or two trailers nothing unsafe about them Cabover configuration is the most popular it wastes less overall length and providing the cab suspension is well designed gives a very good ride, Dont tell Scania Volvo Mercedes DAF and others they are unsafe, no actually do, you might het some education on the subject. Isuzu NPRs are only a puddle jumper Ive been driving their bigger gear lately the 530hp giga cab series nice enough trucks 18sp eaton trans manual usually though they do use a ZF derived autoshift same box as Iveco use but with different shift software.

john

Posted February 8, 2015 at 11:40 PM

Did you intend to respond to me or someone else? If me, continue reading.

OK, I could have been clearer. My comment related to bumper-pull trailers like the one pictured. Fifth-wheel trailers are fundamentally more stable because the lateral loads on the trailer can’t steer the tow vehicle.

However, just because it is possible does not mean it is advisable. I remember one time my sister rented the smallest covered U-Haul trailer they had and towed it with a Chevy Cavalier 4 cylinder automatic from the missouri river to the atlantic ocean. Over the mountains. She made it. But the transmission died a month later. The funny thing is, I told her she would wear out the transmission if she tried it. She started asking me what kind of cars to buy after that and told me she was looking at a brand new soft top jeep. I told her to save her money and trade in the broke down chevy on a nice well used Toyota RAV-4, 2door, FWD only, stickshift, if she is done renting trailers in the mountains. The toyota lasted her a very long time as a commuter vehicle in sunny southern Cali. Her husband bought a Dodge van to tow/haul things with.

One of the best cars I ever towed a large trailer behind was FWD Peugeot 406 manual turbo diesel wagon, of course you’ll say I dont know what I’m doing, well it happens I do, my licence allows me to tow multiple trailers up to what ever max weight limit is current,
I now use a 50hp Hillman Minx to tow my utility trailer to carry whatever will fit on it without any problems in fact it was featured here doing just that

Paul, what you are forgetting is that yes, people tow large loads with smaller vehicles in Europe, but they also have very different rules for trailering. They are able to do so because they distrubute their trailer weight differently, taking weight off the tongue to just 4-7%, while in the US we tow with 10-15% tongue weight. The further back distributed loads in Europe makes for unstable towing at speed, so they implement towing speed limits of 80-100 KPH, about 50-60 MPH.

Bottom line is that Passat would not be capable of safely towing that trailer on American roads at interstate speeds.

Just to add to that point, look at the wheel position of the camper behind that Passat and compare it to the campers above. The European camper’s wheels are almost perfectly centered while the American camper’s are set back, which shifts more weight to the tongue and allows for higher speeds with greater safety.

Which is really better? Depends on your point of view I suppose. But I would confidently argue that the American way is better for American roads.

And one last note, towing in snow is VERY likely in northern climates. FWD loss of traction does indeed become a significant factor when towing here in Minnesota. Towing snowmobiles in the winter is as common as towing boats in the summer around here.

Phil, let me add that European travel/camping trailers are typically much lighter than they look, and what a typical American trailer of similar size would weigh. Thta trailer behind the Passat might not be all that heavy, and the hitch weight might be difficult to guess without knowing.

European rules on trailering are quite detailed. With the right equipment, almost any trailer rig can be certified for the 100 kmh speed, which is 62 mph. In CA, max speed for any vehicle with any trailer is 55. What’s the max speed for trailers in other parts of the country?

My point: with the right equipment, I would absolutely put that Passat rig up against any typical American tow rig for high speed stability. Just adding more weight to the front of the trailer is not the only thing that affects trailer stability. Your “bottom line” is opinion, not fact. 🙂

Phil L

Posted February 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM

I did not realize the laws in CA and OR are different. There are no set speed limits in the midwest. Seems as though I would need to revise my statement, as that Passat would be suitable for towing in OR and CA. Provided it is otherwise suited for the task in terms of suspension and brakes.

This is the first I’ve ever heard of a separate speed limit for trailers. I don’t get it. People with a trailer know their load and know their tow vehicle and adjust their speed accordingly. There is no way a bureaucracy can accurately dictate the correct speed adjustment for every vehicle/trailer/load combination.

Any decent SUV, like a Land Cruiser 150 series, is legally rated at 3,500 kg (about 7,700 lbs) towing capacity. An E-segment car, like a Benz E-class or Audi A6, is around 1,800 to 1,900 kg towing capacity.

And something like a Toyota Prius has a towing capacity of 0 kg. As in zero kg.

Johannes Dutch

Posted February 9, 2015 at 10:45 PM

By the way, since 1984 you need a driver’s license for towing trailers with a car or van. That is, for bigger caravans and trailers. Only very lightweight trailers may be towed without this license.

Driver’s license B is for cars. License B + E is for car + trailer.

john

Posted February 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM

In America you can buy a huge diesel powered motor home, the size of a commercial long distance charter bus, with air brakes, and drive it without any training or any license other than an ordinary small car license.

Johannes Dutch

Posted February 10, 2015 at 12:51 AM

3,500 kg GVW rating max. for a B-driver’s license.

But with a B + E license you may tow heavy trailers (like 20,000 lbs or so) as long as the whole rig is equipped with ABS and air brakes.

Thus you see diesel Land Cruisers towing big trailers, hauling construction machinery etc.
ABS and air brakes all around.

Automobile tow capacities certainly can be limited by the lack of suitable hitch mountain points. My Audi Allroad could accept only a very limited-capacity hitch until I special-ordered a European rear bumper subframe that allowed a proper Class III hitch, which was an expensive ordeal. But the common limitation of other cars has been the allowable tongue weight. As you probably know, Ed, the Forester would make a good tow car except for its MacPherson Strut rear suspension, that allows no supplementary supports such as air bags to be installed.

It’s a shame these issues prevent modern cars from towing their weight, literally. They certainly have more power than these classic ’60s cars!

I would wait until 1974(because the super cab did not exist for the 73 model year) and buy a Ford F-100 super cab short box stepside with the 300six and stick shift.

I do not have the resources to determine…but it would be interesting how many of the above configurations were actually built in 1974. It would also be interesting to know if an F-350 SRW was ever built with a stepside bed.

I could not help but notice the Ranchero and the Econoline are missing from the photo. Both of which would seem to make a good camper tug.

I also noticed that those two were missing. Back in the ’80’s I pulled a 32′ ( I believe) camper with my ’73 Ranchero. It had a 302 with a 3 speed stick. I had a class 1 hitch and air shocks installed right after I bought the truck. It did a pretty good job of pulling the camper except for long grades. I also did not have power steering or power brakes so that added to the challenge.
Whoever ordered that Ranchero new had strange priorities. It lacked all power accessories and had an AM radio. However he also ordered black paint for the lower body and Magnum 500 wheels. I liked that truck a lot but the ’75 El Camino I replaced it with had power steering and brakes , a/c, a 350 and auto, so it did a better job with the trailer.

Whoever ordered it has similar tastes as myself. I would only make 2 changes…a 4 speed stick instead of a 3 speed stick, and a 300six motor if possible, if not then a 240six motor(and upgrade to a 300six when time to do a rebuild), and I would’ve opted for limited slip differential if yours didn’t have it. Then I would add some kind of rear window that opens so I can get airflow in the cab without rolling the windows down.

None of those things were available on Rancheros, you could get a 4 speed up through ’73, with certain larger V8s.

john

Posted February 8, 2015 at 11:33 PM

Hmmm…

I wonder why wiki says this:

“The 240 cu in (3.9 L) six for 1965–1972 full sized cars (continued to 74 in fleet models) and 63-77 trucks or vans produced 150 hp (112 kW). In stationary service (generators and pumps) fueled by LPG or natural gas, this is known as the CSG-639. The 240 had a bore of 4″ and a stroke of 3.18″.”

roger628

Posted February 9, 2015 at 3:27 AM

1)The Ranchero is a Torino-based intermediate,not a full size-Only the 250 was offered and that was gone after mid-’73
2)Wiki is often wrong-The absolute last year of the 240 in the big cars was ’72. No two ways about it.

I don’t care for supercabs, because they don’t look right to me, and I have no use for one. If it was for a work truck it might be different. I used to own a ’75 Ford F250 standard cab long bed, with a 390/C6. It had 16.5 tires. I had to give it up, because it got about 8 mpg in town, maybe 12-13 mpg highway. If that ad is from the first half of ’73, mpg didn’t make a difference, gas was cheap. After the “oil crisis” of late ’73, gas prices skyrocketed, and never came back down. This short period of “low gas prices” (the lowest I’ve seen was $1.63.9, which is about where gas prices should be taking normal inflation into account) is apparently over, that same station is now $1.94 and climbing. Yet nobody but me seems to be concerned, the road is full of huge gas guzzlers. The economy must be better than I keep hearing. $65,000+ vehicles, 12 mpg, $200+ a month insurance rates. I paid $69000 for my HOUSE back in ’94.

I am sort of shopping for my next transportation vehicle. I am limited to $10000 cash, 30 mpg highway, and will put absolute minimum liability insurance on it, about $150 for 6 months. I average about 30,000 miles a year, so gas is my biggest single expense.

Sorry for getting off topic. I just can’t understand how these people do it. Lots of them, not just a few rich ones.

I know you don’t like front wheel drive or 4 doors, but for fuel economy and performance you might consider a baseline Honda Civic 2 door coupe with manual transmission. I just bought the 4 door version, lowest plainest trim level, with 5 speed stick. A 2008 model. I have some complaints about it but overall I am satisfied. I wanted a coupe but I could only locate 2 for sale in my price range…one had too many miles on it and the other had a damaged front bumper and malfunctioning speedo. Not sure how familiar you are with honda, but as with their motorcycles, Honda tends to underestimate their own fuel economy, engine power, performance capabilities and safe engine redline, as compared to everyone else. Everyone else tends to inflate their product’s virtues. Honda makes very modest claims and you are pleasantly surprised by the real world numbers you actually experience. I think honda claims my car weighs 2600lbs and gets 33MPG highway with average acceleration capability. I get 36-39mpg combined city/highway on ethanol and the damn thing handles and accelerates like a freaking race car and feels to me like it weighs 2000lbs. Yesterday early in the morning I ran it high speed on a deserted highway. I hit 105 and the gas pedal was less than half way down and at that speed it steered EXACTLY like a small rear-mid-engined sports car. I WAS IMPRESSED. Of course I didn’t run it that speed around any sharp bends or try to do anything real challenging though. But the wedge shape really pushes the front wheels down and the steering gets incredibly quick and precise. I would not be surprised if it can surpass 130mph before the rev limiter kicks in. Its worst flaws is that it absolutely will not go anywhere in the snow and the engine makes pathetic torque, in my opinion, at low RPM…both of these flaws remind me of a race car.

So to bring this post back on topic, the poor torque characteristics and ultra light weight of this car would make it a really crappy tow vehicle in my opinion.

Agreed, and with prudent shifting and throttle use they can get remarkable mileage. On the note of front wheel drive(particularly 4 cylinder compacts) cars as tow vehicles, they are perfectly capable of handling more than the average American may think. Most any four banger with a stick in decent shape with a conscious, gentle, experienced driver can easily handle 2000lbs in ideal conditions. I understand the manufacturers covering their asses though because most american drivers will want to hotrod it in the left lane while fully loaded.

That is not to say that a fwd econobox is ideal for towing, but if you are mindful, they will not blow up the minute they are hitched to a trailer. I am certain that I have towed around 2000 pounds with my little first generation Civic Hybrid many times. The original clutch still pulls strong and the car still has its original IMA battery(which have been known to fail due to misuse by owners). I towed a small runabout around the southern tip of Lake Michigan from Wisconsin to Southwest Michigan. I have launched an aluminum fishing boat with it and pulled loaded uhaul’s countless times. I stay in 4th gear, which is a slight overdrive, and in the right lane under 55 and it does fine. I have semi-retired it from towing now though, as it is in dire need of struts and that 12 year old battery pack doesn’t need the stress of long distance towing. It still gets atleast 51mpg when I drive it right though.

I bought a beater inline6 dodge van with a 4 on the floor shifter. It can fit much more inside of it than the biggest uhaul the civic would comfortably tow; and with a 3.9 axle ratio and loads of low end torque, it makes an all around more comfortable tow vehicle.

The crux of a passenger car towing isn’t necessarily the engine and transaxle, especially if you have a manual. But towing is hell on the brakes and suspension of most of today’s passenger cars.

The SuperCab was never available with a Flareside bed, mostly because by the early ’70s, Flaresides were rarely seen except on the absolute cheapest of fleet trucks, and the SuperCab was considered a “premium” option. The 6.5′ Flareside actually was discontinued from ’73-76 and only came back for the “lifestyle” trucks like the Free Wheelin’ package.

Not saying you couldn’t easy make one, though. Apparently Dodge offered a few Club Cab D-100s and 200s with the 8′ Utiline.

That is very interesting. I am trying to verify it now. I’m sure I’ve seen 80s model ford F-100 pickups with the old fashioned style step side bed with the chain hanging from the tailgait. Maybe it was a do-it-yourelf job…but it looked like factory paint.

Please re-read above post. The man said that it was discontinued in ’73 and brought back a few years later.

john

Posted February 8, 2015 at 11:23 PM

He used the term “flare side”, which I took to mean the modern version of the stepside, not the old fashioned version.

Drzhivago138

Posted February 9, 2015 at 10:07 AM

It seems some clarification is in order.

Until the mid-’50s, all pickup trucks have what we would call a stepside bed, with exposed fenders. It wasn’t until Chevy and Ford introduced their straight-side beds in 1957 (disregarding the ’55 Cameo) that some delineation of names was needed.
Ford: Styleside / Flareside
Chevy: Fleetside / Stepside (the generic name for all)
GMC: Wideside / Fenderside
Dodge: Sweptline / Utiline
Int’l: Bonus-Load / “standard”
Jeep: Townside / Thriftside (really shows who they were marketing to with each bed)

If I use the term “stepside” (no caps), I mean it in the generic, all-encompassing sense. Confused yet? Don’t worry, it gets better (or worse). As straight-side beds became more popular, the step-sided beds were relegated to stripper fleet models.

Ford discontinued their 6.5′ Flareside because they saw no market for it…until the mid-’70s, when the “lifestyle” pickup became popular, especially among young buyers on the West Coast. So they brought in back in ’76 or ’77 with the tagline “Shorty’s back”. The short Flareside would continue all the way through 1987 with only new fenders to mark each new model; the same bed was used for all 11 years. 1987 Flaresides are the rarest, since that was the only year they used the round fenders.

Dodge dropped production of the Utiline in 1985 (along with the crew cab) to retool their plants for Dakota production, and never brought it back. I think it’s because they advertise themselves as “the workingman’s truck” that they wouldn’t want to make such a blantantly “lifestyle” vehicle. Looking through some old brochures, it seems that the 6.5′ Utiline was available in the mid-’60s on D/W-200 crew cabs and the 8′ Utiline was available in the mid-’70s on D-100 and D-200 Club Cabs, but I’m unable to find more than a few actual pictures.

Jeep retooled their Thriftside (which was the most spartan and no-nonsense of all the stepside beds) in 1980 with new fiberglass fenders and renamed it the Sportside until the J-Series ended in 1988.

Chevy/GMC never dropped their Stepside, only modified it for the new generation of lifestyle pickup buyers. The new Stepside and rechristened GMC Sportside on the 1988 GMT400 trucks wasn’t a wood-floored bed with steel sides and fiberglass fenders, but a full steel bed with all-fiberglass fenders, and was only available as a 6.5′ bed for “lifestyle” pickups. The popularity of this bed led Ford to reintroduce the Flareside first for the redesigned F-150 in 1992, then the new Ranger in 1993. Even Toyota got in on the game with the confusingly-named StepSide in 2000 (Tacoma) and 2002 (Tundra) All these new fiberglass beds were the only ones widely available on both regular and extended cabs.

Ford was the only company to offer the Flareside on a crew cab starting in 2006 and the last company to offer Flaresides at all, as a first-model-year special on the 2009 F-150. Presumably, these were limited-production models that were only made long enough to clear out the stock of existing Flareside beds (as had been the case in 1987). These beds were the 2004-08 beds with new graphics and tailgate badging to fit in on the new 2009 models. A 2009 F-150 with a Flareside bed is a real find now and will be a CC in 20 years. And so the long, convoluted story of the stepside bed comes to an end.

john

Posted February 9, 2015 at 10:30 AM

“1987 Flaresides are the rarest, since that was the only year they used the round fenders.”

Excellent explanation. Thank you. I have seen 80s ford trucks with the old fashioned 60s style fenders on the flareside bed and I just assumed they were produced that way non-stop all the way into the 80s with the modern looking fenders as an option. Apparently what I had seen was either do-it-yourself jobs, or this one year rarity you describe. But I’ve also seen old fashioned flareside fenders on super cabs of 70s vintage fords. I guess those were do-it-yourself jobs then.

Knowing what was coming from the Saudis (or rather, not coming) later in the year, I’ll take a Pinto with the Niedermeyer Option Group (2.0/4-speed, radials, whatever suspension upgrades were offered) and never mind the towing.

Aside from the looks (style is a big part of any vehicle to me, unless it is strictly a work vehicle) another issue with stended cab and crew cab trucks is that they will not fit in any garage, and many parking spaces. That’s why I’m looking at HHRs as my next transportation vehicle. The only thing out there that meets my needs, and has at least some style. I gave up on the PT Cruiser, because it gets only 24 mpg highway (HHR gets 30) and has a timing belt, which costs $1000 to have replaced. The City of Chandler, who I worked for for 27 years, built a 5 level parking garage about 15 years ago. They limited the size of vehicles that could use it. This not only excluded lifted and commercial trucks, but crew cabs and and a few SUVs, like the Suburban and Ford Excursion. And aside from the poor mpg, I never understood why someone would want to drive around in something as long as a Greyhound bus. But I guess that is a subjective thing and is up the the person driving the vehicle. Remember that in the past, there were no such vehicles other than commercial. GM didn’t build a stended cab truck until. Ford and Dodge started a bit earlier, but these were generally considered special purpose vehicles.

Since it can be done (limos) I’m surprised that today’s vehicles stop at 4 doors. Why not 6 or even 8? The more doors something has, the more people seem to want it. I am at least half seriously waiting for cars and trucks with at least 6 doors.

No offense meant by any of this. I just don’t get the door thing. Or the size thing. Huge vehicles that burn gas like there was a hole in the tank, with gas at close to $4 a gallon (soon) I was here in ’73, and I remember the mad rush to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. I guess people have just gotten used to spending 30% of their budget on gas.

I personally like the look of a supercab shortbox stepside 2wheel drive fullsize pickup that does not ride high and has tall skinny tires with tall sidewalls on smaller dia steel rims. I also like the exact same configuration but with a small skidplate aluminum flatbed.

I definitely like tall sidewalls on smaller wheels. But supercab trucks somehow look out of proportion to me. Too long for their width. I grew up with farm trucks, almost always standard cab/long beds, probably no longer than the supercab/shortbed. They just don’t the same to me. I have seen crew cab long beds, and I don’t know how they make it around tight intersections. I also wonder if the frame is beefed up on trucks like this. The longer you make a frame, the weaker it gets. It’s more likely to twist or buckle in the middle. I’ve seen a lot of pickups with frames bent between the cab and the bed from overloading. I think dual rear wheels help the look by giving it some width. If I had the money and could pay for the gas, I might even get a super cab shortbed 4 wheel drive dually, put a camper shell on it, and drive it all over the country. My calculations show it would cost over $13,000 to put 30,000 miles on it at $3.50 a gallon. That’s been about my annual mileage since I got my ’01 Malibu, which gets about 4 times the highway mileage. I see late model trucks like that for sale on Craigslist all the time with over 200,000 miles on them.

See, you say you would like a truck, then compare the mileage of one with a camper to that of a Malibu. If the Malibu meets your needs now, a truck doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But for those of us who have a family and use it for towing and hauling and aren’t putting on 30,000 non-hauling miles per year, it does make sense.

Doors in crew cabs are simple. People with families tend to like to take their families with them when they are towing their boat or camper, or just to get the kids to and from school during the week. Kids in front seats are a no-no with today’s safety naz…er…advocates, and you need space to fit car seats in back, especially if you are tall like me.

My full size crew cab is my do-everything vehicle. Towing, hauling, kids, it does everything I’ve ever asked it to. And the gas mileage, while not great, isn’t a whole lot worse than the boats my parents drove me around in. It fits in most garages just fine. The new pickups are getting minivan mileage. They make excellent family vehicles. There are only a handful of cities in this country where size becomes a big issue. If smaller trucks offered better economy and similar interior space I’d consider one. But they don’t.

While I get by without one, a truck would certainly come in handy. But I don’t have a family (divorced with grown kids) so I don’t need a really big truck. I also have some orthopedic issues that make getting in and out of a higher truck a lot less painful than a really low car.

What I really can’t understand is how a small truck (similar in size to the early Japanese trucks) standard cab short bed, With a lot less weight, frontal area, smaller tires, and a smaller engine with the same technology as a full sized truck, can possibly not get better mileage. I’m certainly no engineer, but less weight, wind resistance, and rolling friction sure seems to add up to better mileage to me.

I do think a lot of that is by choice of the manufacturer though. A friend of mine is considering the purchase of a used BMW X5, and he looked into the trailer capacity and found it to be 5500 lbs. Not bad, especially for something like a utility trailer or a small camper. Being that the X5 is based on the 5-series sedan/wagon, it seems there is no reason the 5-series shouldn’t have a similar towing capacity, unless BMW has voluntarily understated/limited the car’s capacity to boost SUV sales.

They missed out the other odd towing option of the era, a car towing a fifth wheel with a roof mounted hitch. Of the bunch a Country Squire with an Airstream would be nicest, the early 70s Econolines had diabolical handling.

Is it too late to note here that I moved to my 2nd year college apt. with my mom’s Pinto (2.3 liter 4-spd manual) pulling a good-sized U-Haul trailer from Phila to Baltimore.
Didn’t give it a second thought at the time.

I see no reason a Pinto could not pull a small trailer, other than there is simply no place to mount a hitch (not on my ’72 anyway) the 2.3L was not available until after the safety bumpers came along. I have a 2.0L. It’s possible that the hitch was one of those clamp on bumper hitches U-Haul used to use. I towed a U-Haul trailer from Little Rock AR to Phoenix AZ back in the mid ’70s (at age 16) with a 1963 Chevy II. The trailer was overloaded. I was using one of those clamp on bumper hitches. By the time I got to Phoenix, the bumper was falling off the car. It wouldn’t have made it much farther.

When I was hanging out in the sports car club and later motorcycle club racing (amateur) scene in the late seventies and early eighties, Pinto wagons were popular tow cars. A Pinto would easily tow a Formula Ford with a load full of tires, tools and spare parts stuffed inside the back of the Pinto. Nowadays you need an enclosed 5th wheel trailer pulled by an F350 to fit in, in the paddock.

The truck would be my choice hands down. A crew cab would be a bit more handy hauling the family and such. I looked long and hard in the South for a crew but settled for my 71 F250 Camper Special because crews are scarce in my neck of the woods. If I could have found an 8ft flareside bed around here, it would have been on this truck.

There is a lot of good info about bumpside 67-72 Ford trucks on Fordification.com and on Fordification.net for the 73-79 dentsides. According to the 73 Dealer Brochure, an 8 ft Flareside bed was available and a crew cab was available. The crew could have an 8 or 6-3/4 styleside bed or an 8ft Flareside bed. No 6ft Flareside for that year.

Growing up a neighbor had a huge Airstream trailer with the perfect tow vehicle – a fully loaded ’66 Chrysler Town & Country wagon with the 440 TNT. I was curious that even though well-equipped with A/C, the cool full length roof rack and most power options, it had blackwall tires. I asked him why and he said that whitewalls weren’t available on the 6 ply tires he wanted.

When he came home from a trip I would watch as he backed that big Airstream up the inclined driveway. That 440 TNT with dual exhaust produced quite a note.